Rightly Dividing God's Word/Dispensationalism

[Vic C.]

A hyper dispy ''IMO'' is usually one who believes that Scripture has all been fulfilled...Mondar did a good job of describing it..They believe that the gifts all ceased at the end of the first century church....They are also preterits in their beliefs which means no rapture...Most are also Hyper Calvinist or 5 point Calvinist, but not all...

? I wasn't aware of this. I thought they were just "Paul only" people... and I thought many of them were Pre and Post Tribulational as well. I also though they believed that just the sign-gifts have ceased.

I wish Jason would see this and chime in. He knows this stuff well, coming up the ranks of Bullinger and Scofield.

 

[Vic C.]

Handy, was there something inaccurate on the link I provided? If so, let me know and I will gladly remove it. I don't want to be posting bad links.

Thanks.

 

[jgredline]

? I wasn't aware of this. I thought they were just "Paul only" people... and I thought many of them were Pre and Post Tribulational as well. I also though they believed that just the sign-gifts have ceased.

Yes, there is that group of Paul Only people, and yes they believe we will go through the tribulation...and there is no Rapture of the church...

After reading handys post above, she mentioned Biola as a place that teaches dispensation's...Yes and no...I took a bible class there on Acts and 1,2 cor...I can tell you that they very much teach the gifts of the spirit and are really more charismatic than one might think...

I do not believe you will find very many Charismatic dispensationist if any, ''yet'' if you listen to their teaching they will sound and teach dispy....but they will not call themselves dispy...

For example..I do not consider myself a dispy, but I have said that I believe in two....So does this make me a dispy? By the definition of what I described, YES...

 

[handy]

Handy, was there something inaccurate on the link I provided? If so, let me know and I will gladly remove it. I don't want to be posting bad links.

Thanks.

No, not at all. I just wanted to post something that serves the purpose of defining what I understand about dipsy's (I like that, dispensationalism gets way to long to type out!) believe. Then if there is somewhere where I'm going wrong, someone can do the "quote/repy" thingy and correct me.

I also want to add this regarding my own beliefs: While I think it's clear that there are two Covenants in how God has framed promises to men, I do believe that has always been only ONE path to salvation, and that is grace through faith.

If I'm not incorrect, and somebody please do correct me if I'm wrong, I think Dispensationalism teaches that God's plan of salvation has changed with the Dispensations. This is something I've never fully understood, (maybe because I got it all wrong) so this would be another thing I would like to see discussed as well.

Vic, you had said on the "LoseIt" thread in regards to the Book of Life, "Could you point me to these two Books of Life? I wanna read about them. I search and all I come up with are Jewish references. Thanks."

I wondered then if by "Jewish references" you were speaking of things in the Bible that only pertain to Jews. Is this what you meant and if so, can you elaborate why you would think that the Book of Life, and Revelations in general do not apply to Christian salvation?

 

[jgredline]

s always been only ONE path to salvation, and that is grace through faith.

If I'm not incorrect, and somebody please do correct me if I'm wrong, I think Dispensationalism teaches that God's plan of salvation has changed with the Dispensations. This is something I've never fully understood, (maybe because I got it all wrong) so this would be another thing I would like to see discussed as well.

Handy...You are doing a great job and I enjoy reading your posts.. yOU have somewhat proven my point...many of us have different definitions for dispys...
Gods plan of Salvation has never changed...prior to the cross at best the offerings of bulls and goats could only ''cover'' our sins, but could not atone for them..Salvation has always come through faith in God and God alone...So this according to my understanding would not be a dispy....

 

[mondar]

I also want to add this regarding my own beliefs: While I think it's clear that there are two Covenants in how God has framed promises to men, I do believe that has always been only ONE path to salvation, and that is grace through faith.

If I'm not incorrect, and somebody please do correct me if I'm wrong, I think Dispensationalism teaches that God's plan of salvation has changed with the Dispensations. This is something I've never fully understood, (maybe because I got it all wrong) so this would be another thing I would like to see discussed as well.

handy, you most likely have read this charge made by those who are against dispensationalism. I think there was one crackpot dispensationalists somewhere sometime who said something about people in the OT being saved by the Law. On the other hand, I think that crackpot dispy got beat up on enough by his fellow dispy's for the statement so I will not belabor it.

Nevertheless, let me say that I know of no other dispy that believes that salvation in any dispensation is anything other then by justification by faith alone.

On the other hand, what does change is the amount of revelation that we have concerning the exact method of Gods salvation. After Adam, men knew that God would crush the serpants head and somehow reverse the damage done in the fall of man. During the time of the prophets men know that the suffering servant would pay the price of the "iniquity of us all." It was not until the Church that we understood that Jesus would come and be crusufied by the Romans, be resurrected, and ascend. In other words, justification is always by faith alone, but the revelation of salvation was progressive. Believing this does not make one a dispy, but I think all dispy's agree with justification by faith alone in all dispensations.

 

[mondar]

pretrib rapture of the church

If one strives to find distinctives in dispensationalism that is unique, it will be difficult. I would point out that only within the dispensational system of theology is there are doctrine of the pretribulation rapture of the Church. While not all dispensationalists believe in the pretrib rapture, all who believe in the pretrib rapture are dispensationalists.

I hope this defines dispenstionalism a little better.

 

[Vic C.]

Vic, you had said on the "LoseIt" thread in regards to the Book of Life, "Could you point me to these two Books of Life? I wanna read about them. I search and all I come up with are Jewish references. Thanks."

I wondered then if by "Jewish references" you were speaking of things in the Bible that only pertain to Jews. Is this what you meant and if so, can you elaborate why you would think that the Book of Life, and Revelations in general do not apply to Christian salvation?

A Google search revealed this ---> Book of Life

It just seemed like every link provided that pertained to the Biblical Book of Life stated Hebrew and Jewish beliefs and origins. This did not cause me to believe what I believe' it did confirm by beliefs though. It is also well know with many End Times scholars that Revelation is very Jewish in nature; from it's OT references down to it's imagery. It has a very OT-like apocalyptic "flavor" to it.

As I have been saying lately, the more I study with an open mind to the Truth and with my preconceptions at bay, the more I begin to believe much of Revelation is in our past. This brings up the question of when it was written, which is best discussed in the End Times Forum. I'm really enjoying the historical aspect of Biblical studies and I'll explain why:

Imagine hundreds of years from now, a history book was written on the involvement of the US in WWII. It goes into detail of how the US was instrumental in helping bring an end to the war. But it's missing one important aspect; there is no mention of the US' non-involvement at first and how the US got involved in the first place.

Would the person(s) reading that history book have a complete picture of the war as opposed to us, who are not that far separated from the 1940's? We can fill in the missing history well enough to "get the complete picture". However, we are almost 2,000 years removed Biblical times. We don't have all the pieces.

That may not satisfy your question of why I don't feel the Book of Life has anything to do with a Christian's salvation. However, if one considers the historical implications of that book, it will rule out the possibility that it does.

Does that make any sense at all? lol

 

[handy]

I think there was one crackpot dispensationalists somewhere sometime who said something about people in the OT being saved by the Law.On the other hand, I think that crackpot dispy got beat up on enough by his fellow dispy's for the statement so I will not belabor it.

Maybe instead of being a true dispy, he was merely ditsy. :

As I have been saying lately, the more I study with an open mind to the Truth and with my preconceptions at bay, the more I begin to believe much of Revelation is in our past.

This gets at the heart of this thread, "rightly dividing the word of truth". I do not look at the Book of Life as being OT or NT. I think that it is one of the eternal objects in heaven. While I tend to agree with you that much of the prophesies in Revelations are most likely already fulfilled, a careful reading of Revelations 20:11-15 shows that the event being described surely cannot have already taken place, wouldn't you agree? Is not the event of the Great White Throne judgement describing who is saved and who is thrown into the Lake of Fire, and wouldn't that by it's very definition concern itself with Christian salvation?

mondar, you point regarding a pre-trib rapture is well taken. All pre-trib rapture theology is dispy. So, again, going from the perspective of 'rightly dividing the word of truth', does the theology of a pre-trib rapture hold up?

I don't want to get to far into eschatology, as much as we're able I want to discuss these issues from the perspective of "dividing the word of truth".

Here is a link which the idea of Rightly Dividing is explained from a dispy POV. What do y'all think of this interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:15?

http://www.rightlydividing.org/secondar ... iding.html

 

[Vic C.]

While I tend to agree with you that much of the prophesies in Revelations are most likely already fulfilled, a careful reading of Revelations 20:11-15 shows that the event being described surely cannot have already taken place, wouldn't you agree?

Yes Handy, I do. I stop short of the sixth seal.

Is not the event of the Great White Throne judgement describing who is saved and who is thrown into the Lake of Fire, and wouldn't that by it's very definition concern itself with Christian salvation?

No, I believe there is a Judgment seat of Christ for those who are saved prior to His second Coming. A close examination of Revelation 20:12-15 shows it is a judgment of works, as is the Sheep and Goat judgment.

Lets look:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Two verses in a row point to one's works. These can't be Christians because we aren't saved by "works". ;-)

 

[Veritas]

For instance Craig, Javier brought up a good example with the animal sacrifices. Another one is yearly atonement for sins. There's plenty of more, just look into Levitical Law for starters. If you don't believe we are bound to the things I just mentioned, then you too, believe in at least two dispensations.

Oh...okay. yeah, I guess I would. I'll have to look into dispensations, I don't know much about that.

 

[Veritas]

I'm only aware of the old covenant (promise) and the New Covenant (fulfillment) that is talked about in Hebrews 8

 

[Vic C.]

Oh...okay. yeah, I guess I would. I'll have to look into dispensations, I don't know much about that.

Well this is the thread to discuss and ask questions.

 

[mondar]

I'm only aware of the old covenant (promise) and the New Covenant (fulfillment) that is talked about in Hebrews 8

Veritas,
I bet you borrow that nick from the Dallas Theological Seminary publication. No?

The old and new covenants are part of the topic of Hebrews 8-10. The new covenant is also mentioned in 2 Cor, and all the communion passages. What I am about to say might be a little heavy, but bear with me.

How the issue of the New Covenant is handled is a key to dispensational thinking. As dispensationalists have wrestled with this issue they have come to some bizzare conclusions (I can say this since I am a dispy). I believe it was Chafer that taught there is two New Covenants. I dont see this as possible. It is clear that we are under at least some of the promises of the New Covenant, but the question does not relate to the fact that we are under New Covenant promises. In every dispy Church, during communion the pastor stands up front and says "this is the new covenant in my blood." So we are indeed under the new covenant.

The problem is if Jereiman 31:31-40 is read, it clearly says that this covenant is for national Israel. If this promise is made to Israel, then why does the NT quote the these promises as relating to the Church?

The answer lies in careful study of the terminology used in each context in the NT where the new covenant is mentioned as relating to the Church. One word missing in every context is the word "fulfilled." Let me explain with an analagy.

ANALAGY---- If I am a multitrillionaire, and I promise to give my son $100 at Christmas. Then thanksgiving comes along and I give a neighbor boy $100, have a "fulfilled" my promise? Of course not! I promised it to my son. Let me also ask if I have broken my word to my son. The answer is no, I promise to fulfill my word on Christmas day, and that is yet to come.

Because the multitrillionaire is so rich in both money and grace he can give $100 to all whom he desires. Since he is so rich he can always do far more then he promised, but he can never do less.

Such is the work of God in the New Covenant. It was promised to Israel, but God can always superabound in grace and do more then he promised, but he can never do less. He can still fulfill his word to Israel, but the application of the promises of the New Covenant to the church does not constitute a "fulfillment." Neither does it mean God is somehow wrong or unjust. It merely means his grace is super-abounding.

This is classic dispensational interpretation. Progressive dispensationalists see the New Covenant as "partially fulfilled," or inaguarated. In replacement theology they see the new covenant as completely fulfilled.

 

[Veritas]

mondar,

Heh, yeah, I came across the word (my nick) at Ravi Zacharias's ministry site. I thought it was a cool word too, so I'm using it!

The problem is if Jereiman 31:31-40 is read, it clearly says that this covenant is for national Israel.

...Such is the work of God in the New Covenant. It was promised to Israel, but God can always superabound in grace and do more then he promised, but he can never do less.

Cool. This reminds me of the the parable of the workers in the field.

So all of this must fit in with what Isaiah said...because it looks like God was letting Israel know beforehand about His grace:

6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,

7 to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

8 "I am the LORD; that is my name!
I will not give my glory to another
or my praise to idols.

9 See, the former things have taken place,
and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you." Isaiah 42:6-9

and....

6 he says:
"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." Isaiah 49:6

and...


This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I will beckon to the Gentiles,
I will lift up my banner to the peoples;
they will bring your sons in their arms
and carry your daughters on their shoulders.Isaiah 49:22

 

[Vic C.]

Quickie question, mondar... hopefully the answer(s) will help out some people put this in perspective.

The problem is if Jeremiah 31:31-40 is read, it clearly says that this covenant is for national Israel. If this promise is made to Israel, then why does the NT quote the these promises as relating to the Church?

Yup, familiar with this passage for sure. What verses in particular show this prophesy is promised to the NT Ekklesia?

 

[mondar]

Quickie question, mondar... hopefully the answer(s) will help out some people put this in perspective.


Yup, familiar with this passage for sure. What verses in particular show this prophesy is promised to the NT Ekklesia?

Before I quote passages where the New Covenant is applied to the ekklessia (church), I want to mention that I did not state that the New Covenant was "promised to the NT ekklesia." Also, I was denying that the New Covenant is fulfilled with the Church. Neverthless, I affirmed that the Church is under the New Covenant without promises or fulfillment. The verses in the NT are as follows:
Heb 8:9-13; 10:16-17; 2 Cor 3:6-7; 1 Cor 11:25; Mt 26:27-28;
Lk 22:20.

 

[Vic C.]

Before I quote passages where the New Covenant is applied to the ekklessia (church), I want to mention that I did not state that the New Covenant was "promised to the NT ekklesia."...

No you didn't state it explicitly, only through implication by saying:

... then why does the NT quote * these promises as relating to the Church?

This is why I had asked for clarification. It was a bit unclear [to me] what you were implying. So maybe it's just my misunderstanding. I'll keep reading.. and asking when things seem unclear to me. 8-)

 

[handy]

Bear with me folks, for I am going to sound extremely argumentative and negative with this post. However, my purpose for doing so is to be a kind of devil's advocate, to see what answers can be brought up and then we can further the discussion about "Right Division" and Dispensationalism. Keep in mind, most of my formal teaching on this subject was from the negative POV.

No, I believe there is a Judgment seat of Christ for those who are saved prior to His second Coming. A close examination of Revelation 20:12-15 shows it is a judgment of works, as is the Sheep and Goat judgment.

Lets look:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Two verses in a row point to one's works. These can't be Christians because we aren't saved by "works". ;-)

We are not saved by works, but let me point out two things:

a: Our works will be judged. Now, this judgement does not involve our salvation, but rather is a time for the motivations of our heart in regards to our works to be revealed, both good and bad, and a time to either have our works rewarded or suffer the loss of them. 1 Corinthians 3:10-16 1 Corinthians 4:5
b: The passage in Revelations does not say that those who are cast into the fires are put there because of their works. They are put there because they are not written in the Book of Life. Revelations 20:15

The problem is if Jereiman 31:31-40 is read, it clearly says that this covenant is for national Israel. If this promise is made to Israel, then why does the NT quote the these promises as relating to the Church?

This problem has indeed been a bugaboo for dispy's since Darby. And it has caused dispy's to delve into the minutia of Scripture, hang the 'right division' of passages upon whether or not certain words like 'fulfill' are inculded or take entire passages even books and separate them into promises for the Church and promises for a future national theocracy of Israel, even to, as mondar pointed out, bizzare conclusions such as there being two New Covenants along with the two Second Comings (one secret).

One problem though with applying these Old Testament prophesies as only being able to refer to a future national Israel is that you also have interpret these prophesies as meaning that during 'national Israel' there will be a return to sacrifices.

If Jeremiah 31:31-40 is meant for a future 'national Israel', then so is Jeremiah 33:14-18:

"'Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteious Branch of David to sprink forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. (clearly speaking of the time that dispy's refer to as the 'national Israel') IN those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: The Lord is Our Righteousness.' For thus says the Lord, 'David shall never lack a man to sit o the throne of the house of Israel.'"

Now, this is a classic example of the type of prophesy that dispy's point to when they state that there has to be a difference between the church and the Nation of Israel. God meant that this would take place and He even went so far as to use the same imagery in this passage as He did in Jeremiah 31, that of His covenant of the sun and the moon being broken, if this covenant can be broken. Jeremiah 31:35-37 & Jeremiah 33:20.

But the problem with this is that not only does God promise a Son of David to sit upon the throne, but also:

"'and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to prepare sacrifices continually.'"

This return to the sacrifical system is the major, (insurmountable IMO) stumbling block to the idea that these Old Testament prophesies refer to a national rather than a spritual Israel.

This is where the Book of Hebrews is so key to understanding how God did fulfill His prophesies through Jesus and the Church. But, for some reason, dispy's in their 'right division' of Scripture put Hebrews as being for the future National Israel instead of for those to whom it was actually written, those 'holy brethren' that the author and Timothy were going to visit shortly.

I realize this is getting long, but bear with me a bit more. Clearly, I'm not convinced that 'right division' as explained by the dispy's is what Paul was speaking to Timothy about in his second letter. Key to the verse is the word orthotomeo. Orthotomeo is a word that dispy's define as meaning literally to 'cut through'. Think in terms of a butcher cutting the different cuts of meat at the proper places, or a tailor cutting the material in the correct way. This actually gets into the idea of an ethical businessman, not a cheater. Orthotomeo is also defined as proceeding upon the straight path, to handle correctly, to make straight and smooth. The English word 'rightly divide' is one way to translate orthotomeo, but 'handle accurately' is just as correct and fits far better into the context of Paul's instuction to Timothy to teach the Ephesians to be workmen who need not be ashamed, not because they cut the Scriptures into divisions but rather because they handled accurately what the instructions of the Scriptures were.

Because it is a hallmark of Dispensationalism to 'divide' the Scriptures and especially the prophesies into those that are for the church and those that are for National Israel, they run into issues like just how are they going to reconcile the fact that Jesus did away with sacrifices 'once for all time'. But, if instead of 'dividing' the word of God, we actively work towards reconciling the passages, 'bringing them together' we can avoid setting up out and out contradictions.

 

[mondar]

This return to the sacrifical system is the major, (insurmountable IMO) stumbling block to the idea that these Old Testament prophesies refer to a national rather than a spritual Israel.

Certainly I agree that Israel will be under the law in some way in the kingdom. It totally escapes me why this is a problem. If the law was given in the OT, why not the kingdom?

I suspect there is some misunderstanding going on here. I do not see any justification or sanctification taking place by the law in the kingdom, but neither do I see justificaiton or sanctification taking place by the law in the OT. Salvation was always by faith. The leaves the only purpose of the law in the OT as a means of worship. If the law was merely a way to worship God in the OT, why can God not reinstate that method of worship for the Jew in the kingdom?

This is where the Book of Hebrews is so key to understanding how God did fulfill His prophesies through Jesus and the Church. But, for some reason, dispy's in their 'right division' of Scripture put Hebrews as being for the future National Israel instead of for those to whom it was actually written, those 'holy brethren' that the author and Timothy were going to visit shortly.

You totally lost me here. What in the world are you saying dispy's believe? You saying we think the book of Hebrews is for the kingdom? Can you point to one dispensationalists that ever said that?

{I took out some of Handy's odd comments here, not idea what he is trying to say.}

Because it is a hallmark of Dispensationalism to 'divide' the Scriptures and especially the prophesies into those that are for the church and those that are for National Israel, they run into issues like just how are they going to reconcile the fact that Jesus did away with sacrifices 'once for all time'. But, if instead of 'dividing' the word of God, we actively work towards reconciling the passages, 'bringing them together' we can avoid setting up out and out contradictions.

If dividing scriptures up according to context is a mark of dispensationalists, we all attempt to be dispensationalists. Let me illusrate....
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
Have you ever gone the way of Gentiles?

Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Do you avoid evangelizing gentiles and go only to the house of Israel?

If we dont divide up contexts of scriptures, why are we no longer building stone alters to the Lord as the Patriarchs?

Handy, I dont want to be cruel, but I think you are talking about things you dont really know about.